A number of people both on steam and on the in game notice board expressed concern that this feature would be unfair. I would like to propose a version of sanctions, how they would work, and why I think it would be a cool feature adding value to the game.

Sanctions - How it could work:For simplicity's sake I would suggest that sanctions be implemented only as a percentage of a players income that they lose per turn. I know that this might not be exactly reflective of how sanctions work in real life, but I do think it would be the best way to make it work for the game. In real life sanctions are often a restriction on trade which does reduce a nation's income/gdp so simply reducing a nations income by a percentage should be sufficient in game. For simplicity's sake I would also suggest that all sanctions last for 5 turns. eg when a sanction is successfully imposed on a player that player loses x% of their income for 5 turns. A player would be able to propose a sanction of a varying % on another player, everyone in the game would vote on it and if more than 50% agree than the sanction is imposed. AI could simply always vote no, as they do in other such elections. Only 1 sanction could be imposed on a player at a time.

It is also important to try to balance these sanctions so that there is a cost/risk to suggesting the imposition of one. This is what I would suggest be the options/costs/risks when imposing sanctions.

5% of income sanction - 100 gold to hold vote. 5% happiness from the player who suggested the sanction if it fails.. ie does not get at least 50% approval in the vote.

These number could be adjusted but I feel they give a reasonably good risk vs reward balance for imposing a sanction.

Why I rekcon these kind of ideas are pretty darn cool:For me the least exciting period in a game is when there are a number of reasonably large nations that are all allied and simply growing their eco. This stage in a game can last for ages and the only way out of it is through forming/breaking military alliances. I feel sanctions like the ones I suggest would add a very interesting dynamic to this stage in the game. These sanctions will only really be imposed in this mid/late stage in the game when incomes are relatively high so people can afford the cost to hold a vote on a sanction. Also the happiness lost if a sanction fails would make it very interesting eg. a player could be holding the swing vote and vote 'no' making someone lose 20% happiness which has a large value in late game.

I'm sure you can all work out the math an see in which situations these sanctions would be a viable option for a group of smaller nations to restrict the growth of a bigger one. I'm sure you can also see that a way a larger nation could minimise the impact of a sanction could be by lowering their taxes and focus on growing happiness for the time the sanction is imposed. I would also like there to be a post vote map showing who voted for what after a sanction vote life after other elections. This will often shake up alliances I think.

Now to those who say this would be unfair you must understand that this would be an additional game option that would by default be set to "disabled":. So most games played would not have this feature enabled and you would be able to see the games that do before you join them. AOC already has many features like this... randomly assigned provinces, open travel ect... These features are, in some games really fun but they are not for all games and especially not for purely competitive games.

It's my opinion that the more you allow players to customise the games they can host by enabling/disabling these kind of features the more varied games you get and therefore the more people continue to be interested in the game. Player who don't play in the higher elo brackets often enjoy more custom games and it adds huge value to the game as a whole.

I acknowledge that implementing features like this takes a huge amount of time and Noble would have to decide if there would be enough community interest in the sanctions option to justify the time it would take him to make it.

It would be abused in the games it is enabled in. People would sanction people for the lols or just because they don't like a player. You mention using it against a strong nation - well players would use it against weaker nations as well.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum